August 30, 2009

We ask those people to do some very difficult things. Sometimes, that put their own lives at risk. They do so at the direction of the president, and they do so with the -- in this case, we had specific legal authority from the Justice Department. And if they are now going to be subject to being investigated and prosecuted by the next administration, nobody's going to sign up for those kinds of missions. It's a very, very devastating, I think, effect that it has on morale inside the intelligence community. If they assume that they're going to have to be dealing with the political consequences — and it's clearly a political move. I mean, there's no other rationale for why they're doing this — then they'll be very reluctant in the future to do that. ...

We had the president of the United States, President Obama, tell us a few months ago there wouldn't be any investigation like this, that there would not be any look back at CIA personnel who were carrying out the policies of the prior administration. Now they get a little heat from the left wing of the Democratic Party, and they're reversing course on that....

The fact of the matter is the lawyers in the Justice Department who gave us those opinions had every right to give us the opinions they did. Now you get a new administration and they say, well, we didn't like those opinions, we're going to go investigate those lawyers and perhaps have them disbarred. I just think it's an outrageous precedent to set, to have this kind of, I think, intensely partisan, politicized look back at the prior administration.

I guess the other thing that offends the hell out of me, frankly, Chris, is we had a track record now of eight years of defending the nation against any further mass casualty attacks from Al Qaeda. The approach of the Obama administration should be to come to those people who were involved in that policy and say, how did you do it? What were the keys to keeping this country safe over that period of time?

"I believe that the president was right when he said we ought to go forward and not back. I worry about the morale and effectiveness of the CIA. I worry about this thing getting out of control," the Arizona senator said....

McCain admitted that he was "radically opposed" to the interrogation techniques of the former administration and said, "I think it harmed us."...

"I think these interrogations once publicized helped al-Qaeda recruit. I got that from an al Qaeda operative in a prison camp in Iraq," McCain said. "I think the ability to work with our allies was harmed."

"President Bush and I were the ones ultimately responsible for the CIA's actions. We authorized everything that was authorized, including the legal analyses, in the interest of protecting our country. These decisions were not undertaken lightly. If the new administration wants to ask any questions about it, they ask them of ME. The buck stops here."

Maybe Obama will go ahead and investigate. In doing so, he'll find there was no torture. Maybe he'll also learn the effective methods for keeping the country safe from attack during his term in office.

Of course, meeting with Cheney and asking him directly how they did it for seven years would be more efficient and less expensive but this investigation is about politics, not defending the nation or saving money.

His left wing got him his nomination last year. They've been begging for red meat for quite awhile.

"If the new administration wants to ask any questions about it, they ask them of ME. The buck stops here."

How would that stop the investigations? The antiwar left wants heads to roll. They haven't got anything on Cheney, and wouldn't even if he said that he authorized the interrogations. So they wouldn't be satisfied with his claiming responsibility.

During the Vietnam War I volunteered as a Draft Counselor. Of those that were exploring the Conscientious Objector option a good number were not anti-war. but anti going themselves. Over the years I've come to appreciate the following - "We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."

You know... If they just killed everyone held for terrorism reasons instead of releasing some of them, none of this would be a problem. Of course you'd need to hold them in secret too. Then there would be no one to make these wussy complaints of abuses or "torture". No need for courts either.

When you are detained as a suspected terrorist, you disappear, for good. The USA tortures you until the necessary information is extracted, and then you die.

And just think how good it would make all the righties feel to know about the inevitable violent end that all these "suspects" meet! All warm and fuzzy with visions of well-deserved death dancing in their heads...

Why not? Isn't this the real solution to all this sloppy lefty goodwill and pathetic international sympathy. I mean, these are terrorists, they aren't actually entitled to anything, are they? And anything short of this solution is just opening the door to a terrorist attack, isn't it? Don't we need to protect the country to the greatest extent possible?

It's a solution steeped in history too, used by many of the greatest nations throughout the existence of humankind.

I think he's a wienie, Henry. I think I'd respect him for saying that he is against torture - of course he is - he was tortured himself. That's understandable. But he goes further and suggests that we have hurt ourselves by the methods we've used. I think that is his usual pandering to the left.

I don't buy that we've hurt ourselves. I don't believe there is much we could do against this enemy to hurt ourselves beyond appearing weak and retreating. These monsters saw the heads off of people while still alive, kicking and screaming.

If they can't harshly interrogate high value targets, they'll just missile them at home, probably killing innocent people in the process. And, of course, without the information the targets could provide, more innocent people will die in attacks.

But hey, we won't have simulated drowning on people, so it will all be worth it, right?

I don't buy that we've hurt ourselves. I don't believe there is much we could do against this enemy to hurt ourselves beyond appearing weak and retreating. These monsters saw the heads off of people while still alive, kicking and screaming.

I agree with Darcy. Stories of interrogations help them recruit? Maybe the news should report more on the head sawing videos; that should help us recruit.

Life and rage are cheap in certain parts of the world. I do not think they truly have such delicate sensibilities.

Oh, and as to Cheney, of course he's right. The day to day political tit for tat is enough. We do not need to become one of those countries where political factions can go back and forth indicting each other and visiting criminal liability vengeance on political enemies.

I'm totally confused about what point you are attempting to make, J.R.

First I thought you were trying to cleverly point out the extent to which the Bush/Cheney "torture" regime operated in daylight and with accountability.

And who would be more comforted by the secrecy? Those who, to some extent or another, think that it's not wrong to make terrorists uncomfortable or play with their heads? Or would it make those people who would really just rather not know more comfortable?

What do you think of this "anti-torture" quote from Matt Damon?

”Look, the best line about torture I’ve heard came from [retired CIA officer turned war-on-terrorism critic] Milt Beardon,” Damon says. “He said, `If a guy knows where a dirty bomb is hidden that’s going to go off in a Marriott, put me in a room with him and I’ll find out. But don’t codify that. Just let me break the law.’

“Which I think is right. You can’t legalize torture. But anybody would do it in that situation. You’d do it to me in that situation; you’d pull out my fingernails if you thought I knew something like that.”

Clearly not ANTI torture at all... but very much "I don't want to know, don't tell me but please take care of this out of sight and out of mind."

Oh... and "we want you to do it, but we're going to prosecute you afterward if we find out you did it". That too.

McCain may be right about the macro effectiveness of harsh interrogation techniques. He may not be right. But the grounding for his belief seems insubstantial:"I got that from an al Qaeda operative in a prison camp in Iraq."Well, if that prisoner, chatting with a U.S. senator in a camp, isn't a good source, I don't know what is.How did that conversation even take place? (Senator: Hi, I'm Senator McCain. I hear you are an al Qaeda operative. I have a few questions...) What else would a self-respecting al-Qaeda operative say who is bent on destroying the Great Satan?

@Synova- About the secrecy: You don't need to be secret about the fact that the kill-the-terrorists plan is in place. Rather, you just need to keep the individual identities of the terrorism "suspects" secret so nobody knows who we have.

But the whole world can still know that this is what happens at the hand of the USA: terrorism suspects are taken, tortured, information is extracted, and then they are killed. That's the deal. Mistakes might be made but we accept the cost. Don't you think that, in addition to maximally protecting our country, this is an awfully good deterrent too?

"These monsters saw the heads off of people while still alive, kicking and screaming."

And my personal opinion is that anyone who is against waterboarding the likes of KSM can STFU if they haven't seen such a video. They should really, really STFU until they've heard the screams turn to a gurgling sound deep in the throat. I would gladly execute KSM myself, up close and personal. Doesn't make me a monster, makes me someone with the common sense to kill a deadly snake when offered the opportunity.

"But hey, we won't have simulated drowning on people, so it will all be worth it, right?"

I think it's about deniability and the fallacy of clean hands. The perception of condoning even rare use of simulated drowning or, heaven help us, pretending to threaten a terrorist with a weapon or power drill or lying to them from a list of unacceptable lies... for some reason is perceived as a personal or national guilt, while dropping a bomb and killing a terrorist's family for real (I believe this is one of the unacceptable lies?) well, that's conceptually different... somehow.

I don't know why.

I don't necessarily disapprove of dropping a bomb, but I do highly disapprove of what seems to be a failure to understand that it is no more a morally removed killing of the unarmed than a face-to-face murder.

Certainly in a fire-fight the bad guys are at least shooting back at you.

And still... it may be the right thing to do. The threat may be great enough that it is worth risking the "oopsie" of collateral damage (and *really*, if you paint a target on your back and keep your 14 year old wife and new baby with you, who is to blame?) but the same is true of the severity of any other threat and the decision to act... in the case of interrogations to obtain information that may save lives, maybe even a whole lot of lives.

But for some reason many people do seem to think there is a difference... that the one is completely unacceptable and the other is just war.

No one in this comment thread has any idea what they are talking about. It is not up to you to decide what is or is not torture Current U.S.law clearly defines all aspects of torture. There is no special class of human being to which these laws do not apply. No amount of treasonous blather by Cheney will change the fact that Cheney is a war criminal under U.S. law. One would think this would be self evident on a blog by a "law professor."

It's scary to know that the next time we capture a KSM, Obama won't torture him to get information. So when the bombs go off someone somewhere will pay for this policy with the blood of their children and loved ones.

People have abused the term "torture." Torturing someone in order to get actionable information to save lives is totally moral. What is not moral is torturing someone to get them to confess to something for some other purpose, such as in order to improve's the state's prosecution of the person or another. There needs to be a serious "non-partisan" debate on this, otherwise, Democrats will never be trusted to defend the country because the common sense American will never trust them.

Any person with common sense would torture a captive to get actionable information. There are probably thousands of examples in World War II of front line American soldiers torturing captives to get information. Maybe Obama should prosecute them too.

If Cheney were to say this, he would be personally backing up anyone at the CIA or wherever that came up for investigation or potential prosecution.

I mean, this whole thing isn't actually about legal investigation, right? It's about an investigation in the media, a show put on as a bone thrown to liberals.

It seems to me that Cheney, in personally standing up and saying that this was done on HIS watch and HIS authority, would put an end to the media pseudo-investigation, and thus bring the whole issue to an end. It'll be an end that's very dissatisfying for liberals who are expecting a show with fireworks and dancing girls, but it'll be an end nonetheless.

Obama cannot be trusted with our security. It's crazy that he is president - like having the gardner show up when your house is burning down.

It sucks that if my child was the target of a terrorist attack that Obama would not do everything he could to stop it. Obama would just let it happen - no normal person is going to reveal secrets without enhanced interrogation. Just think of yourself, if you were not tortured or believed that you could be killed, why ever reveal any information????

If that were true, then the whole debate over waterboarding would be moot and people would be in jail.

The fact that "waterboarding = torture" is vigorously debated indicates that U.S. law isn't clear on the subject. However, Congress could pass a law outlawing the practice and end the debate right now.

The fact they have not done so indicates that our Congresscritters are more interested in the politics of the issue than they are in stopping something they proclaim to dislike and abhor.

Scream queen Sullivan also posted fresh stuff in the Atlantic after his "Althouse tirade" and his embarassing himself by quoted from the Washington Post about leaving such a valuable quote (that he unwittingly failed to realize was in the article he never read that he was criticizing.

The recent one is further evidence of a Sullivan in steep decline. Perhaps his illness is cognitively affecting him.

Here's another 2 Sully whoppers:

They have described John McCain's experience in Vietnam as torture, and yet what he endured was nothing like as brutal as what was done to KSM.

Sully made a great hero of John McCain. Back when he was talking out both sides of his mouth as usual, initially supporting hitting the Islamoids with everything we had in interrogation...then joining the Left in settling his personal scores with Bush. McCain gave them tremendous cover with his assertions that torture never worked! That interrogators are always outsmarted by heroes like him. And that anything that effectively humiliated or discomforted an Islamoid was torture - McCain pronounced - if it was outside his sacred "Army Field Manual" written at an E-1 level.

(What we do know of McCain, past his Vietnam War assertions, is that he was hit hard by FBI and Justice Dept officials interrogating him of his Keating 5 involvement. That McCain tried lying and "outsmarting them" on Day 1. The investigators checked and pointed out to McCain his lies, also on Day 1. Then on Day 2 John McCain caved and began naming names.)

what is interesting to me is the Washington Post's editorial and institutional position in favor of not calling waterboarding and sleep deprivation what they have always been called in every court of law and every society including the US in recent times: torture.

Sullivan again lies. The enhanced interrogation techniques the US uses on SERE candidates - which include that applied to the Islamoids were NEVER called torture or went to any court on behalf of the 34,000 who have gone through since just Jimmy Carters day (the program goes 30 years back from even there, BTW).

Does anyone doubt that if we ever inflicted REAL torture on American soldiers at SERE - pulling fingernails, Chinese "water treatment, dislocating limbs with rope...it would not instantly be ended?? So why is SERE's techniques, which McCain praises the existence of talking out of one side of his mouth OK, but when applied to terrorists out to kill thousands "immoral and torture" from the other side of McCain's mouth???

And people have begun to look at the cases the Left claims - such and such a Jap was convicted of waterboarding, a cop waterboarded someone --and finding out Lefties are not very truthful.Such and such Japs, who were convicted of torture had waterboarding cited, but only as part of a pattern of sadistic abuse. The cases also included bamboo splinters shoved underneath fingernails, wounding prisoners with non-lethal bayonet sticks for fun..as well as more banal things that clearly weren't torture but were part of the pattern that established the conviction. Fed awful food. Forced marches. Cuffing prisoners not working hard enough. Standing at attention in the hot sun for 4 hours. Forced marches for punishment.In the cops case, the conviction was for violating a criminal suspects due process rights and for physical abuse the cop was not authorized to engage in. Besides waterboarding, the civilian judge also though being kept shackled while secured in a cell, overnight, was also "torture" in his opinion.

Darcy said,"The sawing off of heads is torture for sure. I think we can all agree on that". Ahh, sadly no.The sawing off of heads is murder. Murder designed to terrorize, successfully IN your case I see.

No one in this comment thread has any idea what they are talking about. It is not up to you to decide what is or is not torture Current U.S.law clearly defines all aspects of torture. There is no special class of human being to which these laws do not apply. No amount of treasonous blather by Cheney will change the fact that Cheney is a war criminal under U.S. law. One would think this would be self evident on a blog by a "law professor."

Sorry, won't fly for any number of reasons. The law was not clear at the time, and probably isn't to this day. You may think that it is, but that is only by importing your preconceived notions about what is "torture" into the analysis.

And, even if what happened was "torture" as defined by statute, it is very possible that that statute may not have applied in this situation, as being too far into the area where the President's Article II powers are the strongest (and Congress' the weakest).

You can yell "War Criminal" all you want, but whenever you do, you give away that you are parroting far left talking points, and nothing more.

McCain gave them tremendous cover with his assertions that torture never worked! That interrogators are always outsmarted by heroes like him.

Except torture did work on McCain. He fessed up. They tortured McCain to get a confession and not really for information. The Vietnamese were hoping for a propaganda victory by breaking McCain since he was the the Admiral's son.

On the one hand, I respect the moral clarity of the "no torture" crowd, but on the other hand, they seem dangerously naive on the reality of how to get information from terrorists that will save lives. I think there are precious few normal Americans who are against the enhance interrogation techniques that were used agains top terrorists.

It also is true that McCain is intellectually lazy on the subject, even though I greatly respect him and, of course, he is one of the few (if not the only person) in this debate who has actually been tortured. But he says no torture at any time, but then says we would need to do what needs to be done in the ticking time bomb situation and then says torture does not work.

Of course torture works. It has been around forever because it works. The democrats publicized and politicalized the issue mostly because they thought it would work to their political advantage. Now we are stuck with public debate about something that should be discreetly handled behind closed doors. I hope the naivete of the Obama folks does not cause a major catastrophe.

I thought Cheney was okay today, but I would have liked for him to tell Obama "to leave the lower level guys alone, and if they want to try to prosecute someone, they know where to find me."

The democrats publicized and politicalized the issue mostly because they thought it would work to their political advantage. Now we are stuck with public debate about something that should be discreetly handled behind closed doors.

Very good point. So when Obama makes the call not to torture the guy who knows where the nuke is, you can feel good that your relatives and friends disintigrated for "political reasons."

Why not? Isn't this the real solution to all this sloppy lefty goodwill and pathetic international sympathy. I mean, these are terrorists, they aren't actually entitled to anything, are they? And anything short of this solution is just opening the door to a terrorist attack, isn't it? Don't we need to protect the country to the greatest extent possible?

So when Obama makes the call not to torture the guy who knows where the nuke is, you can feel good that your relatives and friends disintigrated for "political reasons."

You keep on making the point that Obama is not going to turn to torture in this sort of situation. Why do you think he has less common sense than anyone else? If anything, it seems that he is smarter, with more common sense, than almost any other politician. Combined with his opportunistic streak, it seems that he will of course order torture if the situation requires it. He will just make sure it's really really well covered up.

It's actually kind of silly to believe that our waterboarding KSM motivated more terrorists to join Al Qaeda. Perhaps if we peed on KSM's koran, or defiled Mohammad, or killed his children that could motivate recruitment.

The only negative effect "torturing" KSM (other then the crying by leftists) would have is that future Al Qaeda types might be less willing to surrender (if they ever were "willing" at all in the first place.

J.R. : And just think how good it would make all the righties feel to know about the inevitable violent end that all these "suspects" meet!

I think the major problem with "the righties" is that they refuse to declare war. They always talk about small government, but instead of declaring war and doing things in that context they want to give all sorts of extra powers to the government.

"al Qaeda Suicide Bomber Blows Up Indiana Corn Field" doesn't make for very interesting news copy, so I'm pretty sure my part of the country is way down the target list.

Perhaps, but if Al Qaeda was smart, they would attack fly over country. From this you would get the best political bang for your buck since the people in fly over country think Obama is a dope to begin with.

By the way, I think Holder, and certainly Obama, will have enough sense to shut this down after the preliminary investigation and move one, although that raises the question of whey they would start it in the first place.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are county commissioners where I live smarter than he is. It's amateur hour at the WH, and it's a pretty sad spectacle to have to witness.

Dude, he's the President. He defeated Hillary Clinton and her massive political machine in the Great Election of 2008. (Who was that third-party candidate? Sarah Palin and her running mate- that dude with the white hair and the crazy look in his eyes? Was that Ted Kennedy?)

You don't get to be President without massive individual talent. His cohort of screw-ups is another story, one of group dysfunction colliding with group dynamics. Nonetheless, you underestimate the Messiah at your own peril.

but if the fate of thousands might be in the balance and on a narrow timeline many would acede to whatevever works.Even liberals.

Maybe... but you cant just assume that someone (like a liberal) would act rationally even in the most dire circumstances.. If Obama is saying that he won't torture someone ever, you have to take his word for it. It's naive to make the Hitler mistake (when the moderates suppoted Hitler and mistakingly believed that the anti-jewish rhetoric was just all talk).

Dogwood. your statement "If that were true" etc. leads me to believe that you think my statement is false, which in turn leads me to believe that you have not studied the relevant statutes,as I have. Which in turn leads me to believe that you are pulling stuff out of... Age of earth still in doubt. Some say earth 6000 years old,others disagree.IOKIYAR.

"I thought Cheney was okay today, but I would have liked for him to tell Obama 'to leave the lower level guys alone, and if they want to try to prosecute someone, they know where to find me.'"

Dick would never say that, because the real reason he's condemning any investigations of torture by the Bush administration as "political" is because he's scared shitless of having his criminally complicit cowardly fat ass thrown in jail.

I condemn Obama for violating his legal obligation to investigate the crimes of the Bush torture team, by focusing any investigation only on a narrowly delimited group of supposed rogue torturers who "went beyond" the torture that was deemed hunky dory by the torturers in high office. Indictments against Bush, Cheney, et al should have been drawn up months ago.

By the way, I think Holder, and certainly Obama, will have enough sense to shut this down after the preliminary investigation and move one, although that raises the question of whey they would start it in the first place

Hmm, lets see, we've got health care reform, oops excuse me, health insurance reform tanking, cap and trade tanking, unemployment reaching heights not seen since the "Jimmy" years and oh yeah, foreclosurers and banks continuing to fail. Maybe, just maybe it is time to move the narrative off of this adminstration to the last adminstration.

Robert Cook: the previous Justice Department approved of the CIA's actions.

Perhaps you should focus on having an elite international tribunal bringing charges against Bush and Cheney for the Iraq War, which you say is illegal.

Tell us, though, do you really believe that anyone bringing Cheney or Bush to trial based on their political decisions would not immediately bring a civil war? Do you not understand anything at all about politics or the human condition?

So was Carter, and (dare I say it?) Bush 43. Being POTUS doesn't make you smart nor a great politician nor a great leader. Many who've held the office have been these things, but a significant fraction have not. What we have the extreme misfortune to witness is someone who is not. He is in waaaaaay over his head. He might just get it together (and we need for him to), but shit in one hand and wish in the other and see which one fills up first.

James said... No one in this comment thread has any idea what they are talking about. It is not up to you to decide what is or is not torture Current U.S.law clearly defines all aspects of torture. There is no special class of human being to which these laws do not apply.

A Lefty idiot with no idea of what the laws in peace or war opines. And shows that he is the one with no idea of what he is talking about.

1. The courts, civilian and military, don't seem to have any real grasp of what torture is. Some lawyers in robes have called Qur'an mishandling "torture". Some lawyers without robes on have claimed that humiliation is torture and a muslim being grilled by a female is torture because it is humiliating. And no house full of lawyers, otherwise known as "courts" - have declared the enhanced interrogations us soldiers go through in SERE for the past 50 years as "torture" - though it is absolutely identical to what certain lawyers dressed in robes say is "torture" when applied to non-US soldiers.

2. James the fool does not realize that laws, norms, conventions in any society are not always equally applied. Nor can they be. We have big exceptions for what laws apply to whom based on age, mental health, felony record, in times of emergency...and of course whole different laws applied to different classes in times of war.

And that is true of enemy, Especially unlawful enemy combatants that Geneva POW protections do not apply to, nor are they magically made into civilians presumed innocent pending criminal charges with full US citizenship rights if they are not POWs. Something the progressive Jews and radical Left WASPs of the ACLU and "human rights groups" are desperately trying to foist on the general public.

All politics aside, this investigation will be the biggest boner ever pulled by the Justice Department in the history of the United States. Seriously. Major damage to our future security and national cohesiveness. And we will not recover easily.

Put Eric Holder unarmed in a room with me, no weapons. Just him and me, a table with a drawer, and his balls. I can settle this in about 5 minutes. And I'm only partially kidding (we all now know Holder has very small cajones).

Then there's the dogs that didn't bark. These people testifying against themselves in Iranian show trials have obviously been subjected to something more than skilled interrogators. Will the use of torture tactics by the Iranians cause jihadists to flee the cause in disillusion? Will the Obama administration classify the Iranians as evil and unapproachable because they use such tactics? Will a missionary convert the Pope to the Latter Day Saints? ....I don't agree with McCain's stance on torture, but if there is anyone on earth entitled to state a strong contra position, it is he.

"Darcy said,"The sawing off of heads is torture for sure. I think we can all agree on that". Ahh, sadly no.The sawing off of heads is murder. Murder designed to terrorize, successfully IN your case I see."

Jason (the commenter) - I think the major problem with "the righties" is that they refuse to declare war.

The decision by the US and other nations to "outlaw the declaration of war" naturally set us up in conflict with the almost impossible to update and revise US Constitution...mired in a belief that war was conducted 18th century manner, with leisurely debate permitted, with an idiotic succession plan that has the oldest Senator and quite likely the Speaker from the Party not elected to the White House in line.

For 60 years, since Constitutional scholars pointed out to US diplomats and Congress their big UN Screwup and the now obsolete, badly outdated sections of the Constitution in a nuclear age - the American system has failed to fix the problem.

===================James - was unaware that the geneva coventions as amended and signed into law in 1988 by president ronnie raygun was a far left talking point.

Again you play the unwitting fool. Geneva was not amended in 1988. You are talking about the UN COnvention on Torture, which has nothing to do with Geneva.

Reagan and Congress got it understanding that the nations with more human rights issues than the Americans ever did wanted to keep what torture and what humiliation "tantamount to torture" actually was - vague. Reagan and Congress thought it was a nice "feel good" thing to do. Maybe to shame the Soviet, Chinese Gulag operators, Arab and African barbarians, and some of our own "anti-communist allies" to knock off the worst of their slow killings, electrodes to the balls, that sort of thing.

One person at National Review that went through the media, and Congressional records of the 1988 discussions showed that no one mentioned the enhanced interrogation US soldiers had gotten by the 10s of thousands was ever considered "torture" in ANY of the techniques used, nor was SERE ever considered needing modification in contect of the UN Convention on Torture.

Dems in Congress were silent, didn't raise a peep about interrogations of enemy in Panama, the Gulf War, or Bosnia. And Clinton established the rendition program to take Islamoid terrorists to other countries for 3rd degree interrogations that were not "classic torture" but far beyond what we ever did to KSM.

Only in the last few years, after Abu Ghraib, has the Democrat Left and various Jewish and WASP hard Left activist groups seized on this as a way they can both show they hate America and get moral approval from anti-Americans in Europe and the 3rd World, and show they hate Bush.

William - I don't agree with McCain's stance on torture, but if there is anyone on earth entitled to state a strong contra position, it is he.

John McCain is entitled to his various incoherent opinions, but no one has to accept what he has to say about torture "as an expert" since he suffered. Anymore than we have to accept some dupe who had most of their wealth stolen by Bernie Madoff as a sudden leading expert in all matters of how Ponzi schemes work.

There is also the matter of McCain making statements he knows, or should know are flat-out lies.

That torture or other interrogation (like of murder suspects by detectives) "never works" in supplying any truthful info. Only gaining the prisoner's friendship and trust does.

Or McCains assertions that it is "impossible" to know when a clever, heroic person such as himself is lying - something that brought guffaws to every professional interrogator out there, especially those that remember from interrogating the Keating 5 that Mccain tried lying, was confronted with all his lies within hours not checking out as true, then caved the next day and named names and detailed evidence..which was checked again to check if McCain was lying or not.

you admit that this is going to cause an electoral disaster for the Democrats.

More important to do what's right than be popular.

Former, you make some piss poor arguments, dude.

Dude, this is the thread where people argue it's OK to sacrifice our ideals to preserve the nation. It would be inconsistent to hold me to a higher standard. Now I know how Israel feels when Swedes accuse it of harvesting organs from Palestinians.

Furthermore, please tell us, with all your legal knowledge, where it is enshrined in our ideals that we can bomb our enemies into smithereens, such that, in Dresden, there is not enough oxygen in the air to support human life, but we cannot pretend to drown some enemy combatants.

Your ideals are not the country's ideals. You are a tool of Islamofascism.

In the Dresden bombing attacks of 14-15 February 1945 the American Eighth Air Force and the RAF Bomber Command together employed a total of 1299 bomber aircraft (527 from the Eighth Air Force, 722 from the RAF Bomber Command) for a total weight, on targets, of 3906.9 tons. Of this tonnage, 1247.6 tons were expanded by the Eighth Air Force, 2659.3 tons by the RAF Bomber Command. The Americans employed 953.3 tons of high explosive bombs and 294.3 tons of incendiary bombs...

Just as a throwaway, the argument that the conduct of the US in the current war is historically unprecedented is ignorant.

Appealing to a better past ignores the facts. The US was far, far more brutal in the treatment of prisoners in every previous war.

People get that we weren't so nice in Vietnam (the boomers were around for that one), but for some reason previous wars have been idealized. Phoenix Project? Remember that one? The Indian Wars? WW2 and all the German and Japanese civilians we detained? The spies we hung for being, well, spies?

So, why do people act as if this war is TOTALLY different, when it's not, really?

The US should learn from past mistakes and improve, not live up to its previous record. The previous record is horrible. So let's have some honesty instead of trying to score points.

Otherwise, we're saying the stakes were high enough in previous wars to justify torture and execution for people who broke the rules, but aren't anymore. Well, why not, exactly?

On Dresden and Allied bombing, note that we stopped bombing when we occupied an area.

The Axis were just getting started killing civilians when they occupied an area.

If we were really like the Axis, we'd have started mass murdering Germans and Japanese once they surrendered.

As it was, bombing contributed to winning the war against the Axis. Axis atrocities served little military purpose and may have actually hurt their war effort.

The Dresden bombing itself happened after Germany had obviously lost the war. However, almost all military action in 1945 took place after Germany had obviously lost. The German government failed to surrender as the Japanese did. So, IMHO, primary responsibility lies with the German government for continuing a bloody and unwinnable war.

"I think these interrogations once publicized helped al-Qaeda recruit. I got that from an al Qaeda operative in a prison camp in Iraq," McCain said. "I think the ability to work with our allies was harmed."

Though I think McCain opposes Torture, I'm not convinced that he opposes all EITs in general when done out of the public view. The operative messages in both these statements was that revealing our actions caused us PR harm. These statements don't go to the underlying issue. They condemn the NYT and arguably Holder, not the CIA directly.

We can conjure Teddy's memory to pass a humongous tax bill onto future generations in the form of ObamaCare, but we cant conjure the memory of the thousands that died on 9/11 and save lives by pressing answers from Alqaeda terrorist.

I don't buy that we've hurt ourselves. I don't believe there is much we could do against this enemy to hurt ourselves beyond appearing weak and retreating. These monsters saw the heads off of people while still alive, kicking and screaming.

Spoken like someone who truly lacks the ability to distinguish between al Qaeda and just your average brown-complected person in the area whose allegiances are fluid and undefined. But hey! At least you know what the enemy looks like. Which is nice.

Ya see, because al Qaeda lacks respect for American ideals, so must every Arab and Muslim. Yes, I think I get the picture now.

The wing-nuts are cracking. Keep tightening the screw though. Keep tightening. Bolt it on till the threads are stripped.

Who said she hates anyone who isn't white? What she does is mistake the force shown against terrorists with the need to make a positive impression upon non-terrorists.

One of the reasons people oppose torture is not because they think it will win al Qaeda's respect, but because they're pretty sure it will maintain the respect of everyone else - including others in the region.

But a common mistake among neoconservatives is to over-emphasize the value of blind allegiance and to confuse it with leadership and nationalism. It's pretty strange that many here assume that forced democratization will lead Muslims in general to identify with America, but that rule of law and the humane treatment of prisoners will not - or will do the opposite. Pretty strange.

I was not being inflammatory. Not intentionally. How else is one supposed to make a point about others being so sloppy as to confuse partisans in a struggle with the uncommitted millions who are persuadable, without being so pointed as I was?

And regarding (the false concept of) "race", what we're dealing with is something less offensive, but still problematic. Would Darcy or anyone else intentionally confuse the leadership of a political party in America with an uncommitted, independent voter? Maybe that's a bad question, because people here do that all the time. But intentional ignorance of the political or social dynamics in other cultures is related to fear or ignorance of "the other". Societies outside America are not necessarily less complex than our own, and I have committed no wrong by drawing attention to that basic fact - no matter how much offense anyone projected into my sarcasm.

If your (or Darcy's) true aim is to win Muslim societies to the American cause, then you would put more emphasis on whether or not our methods are sensible and successful - and take into consideration the realities demanded by separating enemy from potential ally, and not on distracting sideshow issues related to the American concept of race and the brou-ha-ha that it causes if one is (unintentionally, in this case) reminded of it. The point I was making fell squarely into the exigencies of the former.

You can ignore the salient issue and thank Knox for responding to a red herring all you want, Darcy. Anyone who refuses to see the difference betweeen what al Qaeda thinks and what non-al Qaeda Muslims think deserves to be called out for that.

What I have never seen discussed is that the choice for these "high value" detainees is capture and interrogation or death in the field. Rangers, Delta Force, Seals and Recon Marines put themselves at substantial risk by forcing entry and capturing these folks alive. They put themselves at risk because of the value of the information inside these their heads.

The armed forces can do a cost benefit analysis, you get good at it when the cost is 'you die.' When the benefit is Talib Talibani spends life in an American prison without giving up any information the cost/benfit analysis is pretty easy and you call in an air strike or set up a mortar tube.

All of the preening "Anti-Torture" people, do you feel any guilt about the fact that you are directly contributing to deaths on the battle field?

When the benefit is Talib Talibani spends life in an American prison without giving up any information the cost/benfit analysis is pretty easy and you call in an air strike or set up a mortar tube.

In general, I completely agree, however, we're also after laptops and cell phones. OTOH, we have some pretty good computer forensics guys which can handle damaged disk drives and make them sing. Let's split the difference and us an SDB, then sift the rubble

The bottom line is that if prisoners are of less intelligence value, fewer will be taken, unless absolutely directed. Even then the Squad leader is going to parrot Hill Street Blues.

"The Old Man didn't specificly request prisoners this time, so let's be careful out there and make sure your targets are down. 2 in the chest and 1 in the head."

Darcy - if we have to saw heads off to save our civilization then by gosh darnit that's what we gotta do! There is no room for squeamishness in this enterprise. We need strong men who have the belly for hideous violence.

Someone cannot take part in an honest debate while misrepresenting the other side. Darcy denies that we have weakened ourselves by using brutal methods against suspected terrorists. Her reasoning is that the only way we weaken ourselves is by "appearing weak and retreating". She then emphasizes the methods of "these monsters" in an effort to perpetuate and intensify a generalized sense of fear.

The fact that she doesn't mention the rationale of those who oppose torture on the grounds that it has weakened us by causing us to lose credibility with Muslims who were NOT part of al Qaeda shows that she either: 1) Is not aware of that painfully obvious (and very well-publicized) argument, 2) Doesn't care about it, or 3) Is intentionally obfuscating between enemy and those who are not our enemy in order to make an emotive (and blundering) appeal to torture.

(3) is not mutually exclusive from (1) or from (2).

I leave it to Darcy to clarify her intention behind making the statement she did in light of that.

Winston Churchill once said that people sleep safely at night because "hard men are ready to do extreme violence to bad men anywhere in the world in their name". Let's keep doing that. Remember it's for the child-RUN.

Of course, I doubt she will. Because conflating between al Qaeda and non-al Qaeda apparently leaves her open to charges of "racism", and she is too good to be exposed to that. (Despite the likelihood that she made the blundering conflation in the first place).

Then in that case, I think you're a coward who refuses to take responsibility for your own words.

Who I am and who you are... these things are inconsequential to the debate that has been taking place regardless of which points and arguments you or I repeat and re-iterate here. But you can go ahead and keep a debate as "personalized" as you want if that's what allows you to run away from seeing and discussing it in an objective light.

Pompous Montanus plays the race card: Spoken like someone who truly lacks the ability to distinguish between al Qaeda and just your average brown-complected person in the area ....

And goes on and on: The fact that she doesn't mention the rationale of those who oppose torture on the grounds that it has weakened us by causing us to lose credibility with Muslims who were NOT part of al Qaeda shows that she either: 1) Is not aware of that painfully obvious (and very well-publicized) argument, 2) Doesn't care about it, or 3) Is intentionally obfuscating ....

It might also show that she thinks the argument is merely specious and undeserving of acknowledgement.

MUL - The rest of the world simply isn't as squeamish about prisoner treatment as you are, my friend. You're projecting your own neuroses onto the "brown people" of the world. Pretty presumptuous of you, white man.

Because conflating between al Qaeda and non-al Qaeda apparently leaves her open to charges of "racism", and she is too good to be exposed to that. (Despite the likelihood that she made the blundering conflation in the first place).

She made no such conflation. You and the other far left are the ones who are saying that the (supposed) torture of Al Qaeda is what is creating or recruiting converts to their ranks.

Not all Al Q are "brown skinned" nor do they recruit exclusively from any particular group. They are quite active in recruiting within the US as well. You are the one who is making this assertion pf "brown skin".

The contention that the torture of KMS or any other is somehow swelling the ranks of Al Q is specious and unproven. There are many other factors much more important or motivating that convert people to their cause.

This is what passes now for argument from the left. Disagree with Obama...racist!! Disagree about Al Q.....racist. Disagree with you about anything....RACISTS!!! You think it is the ultimate trump card. All it does is show the paucity and hollowness of you ability to reason or carry on an actual debate.As to being torture. Waterboarding had been designated as not torture. Uncomfortable, scary, very scary ...yes. But not torture like McCain experienced where he was crippled for life.

And furthermore: I don't give a shit what they do if it means that thousands and thousands of innocent lives are saved from these demented fanatics.

The fact that she doesn't mention the rationale of those who oppose torture on the grounds that it has weakened us by causing us to lose credibility with Muslims who were NOT part of al Qaeda shows that she either: 1) Is not aware of that painfully obvious (and very well-publicized) argument, 2) Doesn't care about it, or 3) Is intentionally obfuscating between enemy and those who are not our enemy in order to make an emotive (and blundering) appeal to torture.

I must have missed the golden period of human history when we actually had credibility with the Muslim world?

Forgive me for saying it but we're talking about a group of people who go on murderous rampages because of a fucking cartoon. As far as I am concerned, a bit more social evolution on their part is needed before I start caring about our credibility in their eyes.

She thinks it's undeserving of comment because she can't defend what she said.

I don't have a horse in this race, Maguro. You can personalize it all you want; I assure you my alleged squeamishness is not the issue. But I can however manage to adequetely identify the arguments of others, arguments made by much more serious and important people than Darcy and elHombre.

And "brown people" may or may not be Arab or Muslim. But in this case I think it's clear that some very select individuals lack the brains to understand the importance of distinguishing between Arab/Muslim "brown people" and al Qaeda "brown people".

Whether or not you think that lack reflects a neurosis - I leave that for you to decide.

"All it does is show the paucity and hollowness of you ability to reason or carry on an actual debate."

And someone who lacks the ability to distinguish between the reactions of al Qaeda to torture and the reactions of non-al Qaeda to torture is somehow qualified to carry on an actual debate? They've proven their ability to engage in reason? By what logic?

Ok. I see how paranoid you get if suspicions of racism come into play. So let's keep it simple. For whatever reason, you and your friend refuse to distinguish between al Qaeda and non al Qaeda. My guess is, whether racist or not, it's downright ignorant and destructive to do this. But the onus is on whoever does this to explain why someone would lack the ability or foresight to do so. But if you merely care to defend that oversight, Bunny - go right ahead and offer your own explanation.

My assumption from the get-go is that the following groups you have mentioned (in broad terms, but ok):

1. the "average brown-complected person"

2. "non-terrorists"

3. "others in the region"

and

4. "Muslims in general"

... are on our side in the fight against al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Why would honest, peace-loving people feel otherwise?

If they draw a moral equivalence between us and terrorists who wage ongoing attacks against innocent civilians, then they are not win-over-able. I don't think there are "political or social dynamics in other cultures" that can explain a person siding with al Qaeda. If they do, they're evil.

MUL, that is utterly unfair. Darcy objects to terrorists who behead people ... so she hates anyone who's not white??

Well in MUL's world, when you can't win the argument, pull out the race card. Cause we all know Muslims have now been re-classified as a race rather than followers of a particular religion.

I mean it would be nice if the non-terrorist sympthizing Muslims would show even 10% of the outrage over innocent people havin their head's sawed off in the name of their religion as they did over frat boy pranks in Abu Ghraib or a stupid cartoon.

And I love the blah blah blah about recruiting in the U.S. and Europe. Public opinion apparently doesn't matter, Bunny? Widespread public support or sympathy for bin Laden in the Middle East is somehow now less important than the fact that al Qaeda can recruit the odd white convert to terrorism here or there in European countries and in the U.S.? This is really the argument you wish to make, Bunny? This is a serious reply to the charge of besmirching our cause in Arab countries? O-kay...

If only we could go back to the Clinton years when the world and especially the Muslim world loved and respected us because we didn't torture anyone and there were no terrorist attacks until that idiot Bush stole the election.

Racism is not so much the problem as is this weird obsession with it. I made a charge (not seriously rebutted) of refusing to distinguish between al Qaeda and non-al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is a phenomenon particular to Arab/Muslim societies. There is widely thought to be utility in separating out al Qaeda from those from the same societies who might be inclined to sympathize with them or support them, but whose sympathies we might compete for. If you disagree, address that. Stop throwing out red herrings.

I don't think it is really that controversial to accept that a struggle is at play between the ideas espoused by al Qaeda and the ideas espoused by the Western liberal democracies and other modernizing countries. Nor do I think it is controversial to state which of those sides we'd identify as being closer to "our cause".

Pompous Montanus perseveres: And "brown people" may or may not be Arab or Muslim. But in this case I think it's clear that some very select individuals lack the brains to understand the importance of distinguishing between Arab/Muslim "brown people" and al Qaeda "brown people".

More importantly, in the larger context Muslims, including non-al Qaeda Muslims, some of whom also kill people, may not be "brown people."

So why did the oh-so-bright PM bring up "brown people" in the first place? I'm not too "serious and important," but I think my first post nailed it nicely: "Pompous Montanus plays the race card."

MUL - You're taking an idea that you believe deeply - that the US should treat terror suspects according the Geneva Convention or the US criminal code or some other lawyer-approved process - and projecting that belief onto "brown people" or "Arab public opinion".

In reality, there's no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that the man in the street cares about whether we waterboarded KSM, beat him with a rubber hose or whatever. We're no more unpopular in the Arab world now than we were before 9/11 (remember all the glee in the West Bank when the twin towers fell?), long before KSM was captured or anyone had ever heard of waterboarding.

People in that part of the world expect criminals to be handled roughly, and that includes terrorists. KSM's whining about his treatment to the media may draw western liberals to his cause, but his own people despise such weakness.

In case you hadn't noticed, support for Al-Quaeda has been falling throughout the Arab world for a few years now. Strong horses don't cry about a little water over the face.

I think the obsessive reactions say more than the original statement did.

If you're more concerned with fighting ghosts of allegations of racism than with the original idea (a disinterest in arguments that address the difference between al Qaeda and the general population in societies where support for al Qaeda is more widespread), then I seriously think you have a bigger problem than being potentially castigated as a "racist". You might instead be an "ostrich". But feel free to continue shifting the discussion. It makes you look more clever than if you were to simply stick your head in the ground.

I'm not sure I buy into your assumption of the uniqueness of al-Qaeda...

I'd be interested in other's opinions on that....

I would say that the corrupt nature of the governments in the Middle East and their lock down control of the means of communication are bigger factors in the battle for hearts and minds then how we conduct interrogations.

madawaskan is helping to bring this discussion to maturity. But what are you saying? That we engaged in extra-legal measures with the mafia? That the relationship between the mafia and the Italian American community was extensive enough to pose as grave a threat to American life as terrorism apparently does to long-term American interests?

And just because it seems to have touched such a nerve, I'll apologize to Darcy or to anyone else who thinks I'm alleging specifically racism in my initial comment. What I'm alleging is ignorance and/or intellectual dishonesty, which, depending on how you look it, is as bad or worse than racism.

For whatever reason, you and your friend refuse to distinguish between al Qaeda and non al Qaeda. My guess is, whether racist or not, it's downright ignorant and destructive to do this

Step back and actually read the words that are written. I carefully distinguished between Al Q and non Al Q. There are people from Marin County, California in Al Q, England, France, Spain and Asia and the Middle East. Al Q is a philosophy not a race or ethnic based or even completely religious based organization.

YOU are the one who wants to insert race into the argument because your arguements are so weak and incoherent you know you can't win without whining and pointing fingers or calling people racists.

Whether torturing or harsh interrogation methods are recruiting people to Al Q is the question. Some here think not and that that contention is wrong and ridiculous. Because you refuse to address that issue, or can't, you try to trump the race card.

If you're more concerned with fighting ghosts of allegations of racism than with the original idea (a disinterest in arguments that address the difference between al Qaeda and the general population in societies where support for al Qaeda is more widespread), then I seriously think you have a bigger problem than being potentially castigated as a "racist".

Well as for your 'original idea', I'll go back again and reiterate that until some time the Muslim community at large holds a million man march denouncing Al Quaeda, jihadism and stops referring to non-Muslims as infidels then I'll be happy to address those differences. But at this time it would appear that the masses are either disinterested or perhaps cowed into silence by that teeny weeney, nearly insignificant minority of Muslims who I'm constantly told are the actual terrorists.

You might instead be an "ostrich". But feel free to continue shifting the discussion.

The argument that US actions swell the ranks of al Qaeda or the Taliban with recruits is a red herring.

While it may be true to a certain extent, those recruits were predisposed to join up regardless of what the US does or does not do. We’re talking about parts of the world where we are held in universal contempt simply for who we are.

Regardless, It matters not that al Qaeda or Taliban are meeting their recruitment target, as long as we keep pounding on them and taking out their leadership cadres. They can recruit as much as they want, put them into training camps and train them, and then what? They go out and die, for the most part, or they stay in camp making nuisances of themselves with the livestock.

In other words, it doesn’t matter how swollen with the righteous these organizations get, as long as they remain ineffective to a great degree.

And ineffective means the following: Not able to carry out attacks on the American homeland. That’s the bottom line.

Because, really, I could give a rat’s ass about what any of them think of me and mine. I don’t want my nation to be “liked.” I want them to fear my nation, because that is the only thing they understand. I want them to understand that the consequences of screwing with the United States is death or, at best, a life on the run, mostly spent in dirt hovels or caves. But mostly death.

They are barbarian savages, and I acknowledge and accept that on occasion, I’m going to have to descend to their level in order to defeat them. And that’s the difference between those of us in the West and those barbarian savages; we’re able to compartmentalize. We can bring ourselves back out from savagery after the berserker goes back to sleep. Every war we’ve ever fought is an example of this. Why should this war be any different?

You are being extremely charitable here. The idea being forward by PM is that torture of terrorists "has weakened us by causing us to lose credibility with Muslims who were NOT part of al Qaeda." (9:42)

A quick review of the presuppositions necessary to that view suggest that it is a speculative claim, probably motivated by politics, and not something thoughtful people would "believe deeply." (John McCain notwithstanding)

Al Q is a philosophy not a race or ethnic based or even completely religious based organization.

Islam, as a religion, makes specific appeals against racism or viewing people as separate races. This does not mean that people don't belong to different societies. And it does not mean that al Qaeda is not primarily a religious movement. Only someone secluded from any understanding of al Qaeda or the history of the Middle East would make such a baseless assertion. Your understanding of Islam is as shallow as John Walker Lindh's. Are you from the same part of California that he was?

And I'm glad to hear that you don't believe someone's words can be a reflection of their thoughts. That explains a lot. I forgive you for what I previously mistook to be your ignorance, as your words and incoherent statements are really not a true reflection of how little you know.

And I'm glad to hear that you don't believe someone's words can be a reflection of their thoughts.

Quite the contrary actually. Unlike some, I generally assume that people mean what they say. Darcy quite correctly referred to people who saw the heads off of innocent folks as monsters. You obviously saw brown people. I'm sorry that you're obessesed with skin color when the real issue is a religion that that has been corrupted into a destructive ideology.

With respect to history, I'm quite confident that I have forgotten more than you'll ever know pal.

But if such a comment makes you feel better about yourself then please don't let me ruin your fiction.

Then stop PERSONALIZING it! If you have a point, lay off the ad hominems, and enlighten me about such scintillating matters as how Muhammad defined Jews as a distinct "race" 1200 years before the concept came into widespread use.

"Quite the contrary actually. Unlike some, I generally assume that people mean what they say."

Yes. As do we all. Some of us just have more knowledge and intelligence with which to discern the most accurate meaning of, and context for, that which they say.

"Darcy quite correctly referred to people who saw the heads off of innocent folks as monsters."

See above. If the deepest insight you can offer on the political statement made by beheading is that the people who do it are "monsters", then I applaud your successful, kindergarten-level understanding of morality and ethics.

"You obviously saw brown people."

No. It's what I said. Not what I "saw".

"I'm sorry that you're obessesed with skin color when the real issue is a religion that that has been corrupted into a destructive ideology."

I mentioned skin color one time - and you still don't understand the extent to any significance (or lack thereof) of that. You harp on it, obfuscating the issue of religion/ideology with my supposed "race card" antics, yet I'm the one who's obsessed?

No. Quite simply, you're obsessed with accusing me of something so that you can take part in distracting everyone from the whole point of the discussion.

What's perceptive is doing the research and finding out what people really think, rather than just laying out some backwoodsy, folk wisdom. What's perceptive is accepting that an ability to accurately identify the missing argument from a debate is not the same as accumulating evidence for it, Gramps.

Settle down and hold on to your Geritol! Junior has to finish lunch, get back to work and then see what evidence exists (other than McCain's statement) that justifies the perfectly plausible argument in question.

Yes. As do we all. Some of us just have more knowledge and intelligence with which to discern the most accurate meaning of, and context for, that which they say.

And here I thought that was a skill reserved to God. In your case I'll go with projection.

See above. If the deepest insight you can offer on the political statement made by beheading is that the people who do it are "monsters", then I applaud your successful, kindergarten-level understanding of morality and ethics.

You mean there is something more profound in the message the masked man with the scimitar is trying to get across to the rest of us?

No. It's what I said. Not what I "saw".

Oh I see. That clears it all up.

I mentioned skin color one time - and you still don't understand the extent to any significance (or lack thereof) of that. You harp on it, obfuscating the issue of religion/ideology with my supposed "race card" antics, yet I'm the one who's obsessed?

Yes you are the one that is obsessed because the color of the skin of the terrorists is irrelevant to the discussion unless you're trying to deflect the debate to something else. Here lets try this experiment.

Spoken like someone who truly lacks the ability to distinguish between NAZIS and just your average blonde haired blue-eyed white-complected person in the area whose allegiances are fluid and undefined.

The enemy is al-quaeda, who just happen, perhaps coincidently, to be Muslims. Now the fact that you have to bring skin color into the discussion again says more about you than it does me. Kind of like how Cedarford can't make some kind of post without referencing the diabolical Joooos.

No. Quite simply, you're obsessed with accusing me of something so that you can take part in distracting everyone from the whole point of the discussion.

McCain's comments form a part of the historical record and, as such, do constitute evidence. It's not primary evidence, but he, along with many others, are in a position of authority to speak on what they know of the effects of torture and are not wrong to have influenced the public discourse on torture - which is precisely what this is about. It's a political debate, not just a policy debate. Evidence matters. So does willingness to CORRECTLY IDENTIFY the actual fucking argument FIRST.

So sorry to interrupt your obsession over every comment I post, with a need to have obligations owing to a real life every now and then. Too bad if you can't relate to that.

And it's not my position. Like the blog proprietor, I'm also allowed to air and correct arguments that have been misrepresented. I don't own positions that have been widely aired in a very public debate. If it upsets you that I point out the way others have misrepresented them, then too bad, Gramps.

And Hoosier's comments are simply too dumb to respond to.

But if it still isn't clear to anyone else, ignorance of other cultures can be a problem in understanding movements that arise elsewhere. I could have used any device to bunch in al Qaeda with non-al Qaeda in those countries. Reference to skin color is inconsequential other than for its apparent ability to offend people who are overly sensitive (or paranoid) of insinuations of racism. I already apologized if that was the inference - as it would have been an erroneous inference. The point is one of how nativist ignorance confounds one's understanding of events in other societies, of which racism could be an example - but not here.

Al Qaeda is not incidentally Muslim. It's the primary form of identity to which the organization appeals. For Hoosier to not understand the significance of that - to pretend away the distinction between how a Muslim processes the significance of al Qaeda from the way a Christian processes the significance of al Qaeda - is the absolute, DUMBEST thing anyone's ever heard in the last 10 years. The appropriate thought experiment is to say that there is no difference between the way a Christian explains away the Christian Identity movement and the way a non-Christian explains away the Christian Identity movement. But that's absolutely stupid. To believers, theological explanations matter. To non-believers, they don't. Hoosier is simply too dumb to understand this.

But someone that dumb thinks that he's in a position to call into question the motives of others? Of course he's not. There is simply no need to take his accusations seriously. Which is probably why most people have moved past them. I don't know what kind of guilt or paranoia he's trying to make himself feel better about by obsessing with race over a single statement uttered long ago, but that's not my problem. It's his.

Just an exercise in being more interested in accuracy than in being annoying. Of course, some of us are smarter than we are perfect. But go back and read the edits, you illiterate, and you'll find they're not technically the same posts. I know you would have pounced on anything less than immaculate in any of them - even a typo. But that's because ideas matter less to you than defending some inane point and trying to prove that you're somehow better than everyone. That, and taking your arguments personally.

For Hoosier to not understand the significance of that - to pretend away the distinction between how a Muslim processes the significance of al Qaeda from the way a Christian processes the significance of al Qaeda - is the absolute, DUMBEST thing anyone's ever heard in the last 10 years.

Hmmm, you know, I am going back through my postings and I am wondering where I exhibited my ignorance of how Muslim processes the significance of al Qaeda versus how Christians processes the significance of al Qaeda.

Maybe it was my ignorant expectation that Muslims would be horrified and outraged at the atrocities being carried out in their name, specifically the Allah Akbars yelled while sawing off some poor sap's head.

"Hmmm, you know, I am going back through my postings and I am wondering where I exhibited my ignorance of how Muslim processes the significance of al Qaeda versus how Christians processes the significance of al Qaeda.

Maybe it was my ignorant expectation that Muslims would be horrified and outraged at the atrocities being carried out in their name, specifically the Allah Akbars yelled while sawing off some poor sap's head."

Sounds like a very theologically-oriented explanation. You should be a Mufti.

Equally interesting would be my ignorant expectation that Christians would have been horrified and outraged at the atrocities being carried out in their name during the Crusades, the Inquisition, the conquest of the Americas, etc. Damn the dictates of faith, religious authority and exegesis!

Sounds like a very theologically-oriented explanation. You should be a Mufti.

I like my liquor too much.

Equally interesting would be my ignorant expectation that Christians would have been horrified and outraged at the atrocities being carried out in their name during the Crusades, the Inquisition, the conquest of the Americas, etc. Damn the dictates of faith, religious authority and exegesis!

Well you know what, by 21st century standards I do believe that most, if not all Christians would indeed be horrified at the acts committed a millenium ago and as early as, oh lets see, 1492? Yes indeed I do believe most are as we are continually apologizing for everything from the Crusades to Columbus and Cortez.

Note MUL that those horrible acts took place at a time when folks thought the world was flat and the Earth was the center of the universe. I guess all I am asking is that the Muslim world try and catch up with the rest of us, or at the least, maybe the mid 19th century.

"Note MUL that those horrible acts took place at a time when folks thought the world was flat and the Earth was the center of the universe. I guess all I am asking is that the Muslim world try and catch up with the rest of us, or at the least, maybe the mid 19th century."

You can ask all you want. Whatever makes you think you're in a position, however, to make a successful appeal on behalf of intellectual and moral modernity to a proud culture that refuses to address the fact that it translates less books into its language each year than are translated into Greek - despite having more than 30 times the population of Greece - is beyond me.

"You said you'll forget more about history than I'll ever know, right?

Pompous Montanus bleats: But go back and read the edits, you illiterate, and you'll find they're not technically the same posts.

Do you mean "the edits" of the virtually identical posts you deleted at 1:08 and 1:13, you disengenuous twit.

So I guess McCain is your only evidence in favor of this "widely aired" position.

Well McCain did try to bolster his own opinion by tendering some alleged statement by "al Qaeda operatives." Of course, it does seem unlikely that terrorists would take the position that torturing terrorists is a-okay. And didn't Muhammad say it was permitted to lie to infidels to further a war?

If this "evidence" shows anything, it is that the "operatives" are smarter than either you or McCain.

So in the meantime, I think we're best off doing all we can to separate al Qaeda from the elements from which it can gain support - and addressing them or appealing to them in separate ways, morally, intellectually, what have you - despite the fact that they share similar cultural and theological roots. I think the lessons of history would support that. Silly me.

You can ask all you want. Whatever makes you think you're in a position, however, to make a successful appeal on behalf of intellectual and moral modernity to a proud culture that refuses to address the fact that it translates less books into its language each year than are translated into Greek - despite having more than 30 times the population of Greece - is beyond me.

Hmmm. Where do they speak Muslim? I tried to find it on the list of Rosetta Stone CDs and couldn't find it.

"You said you'll forget more about history than I'll ever know, right?

My God, I missed this one (2:00 pm): Equally interesting would be my ignorant expectation that Christians would have been horrified and outraged at the atrocities being carried out in their name during the Crusades, the Inquisition, the conquest of the Americas, etc. Damn the dictates of faith, religious authority and exegesis!

First the race card and now this.

Quite right, Pompous. As soon as the Christians of the past watched those abuses on MSNBC, they should have fired off a horrified, outraged email to, um to .... To whom? The Pope? The king? Pizarro? Their Congressman?

I think the major problem with “the righties” is that they refuse to declare war.

War in Iraq and Afghanistan (aka the War on Terror) was declared. The present Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden (then Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and author of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force after 9/11) put it well in response to a question from the audience after a speech given in October 2001.

Question from audience: “My question is this, do you foresee the need or the expectation of a Congressional declaration of war, which the Constitution calls for, and if so, against whom?”

Biden: “The answer is yes, and we did it. I happen to be a professor of Constitutional law. I'm the guy that drafted the Use of Force proposal that we passed. It was in conflict between the President and the House. I was the guy who finally drafted what we did pass. Under the Constitution, there is simply no distinction … Louis Fisher(?) and others can tell you, there is no distinction between a formal declaration of war, and an authorization of use of force. There is none for Constitutional purposes. None whatsoever. And we defined in that Use of Force Act that we passed, what … against whom we were moving, and what authority was granted to the President.”

Thus, the country is quite legally at war in both Iraq and (separately) Afghanistan and other nations that harbor those persons and organizations responsible for 9/11.

One might note that Eugene Volokh, professor of constitutional law at UCLA, has written on a number of occasions that he fully agrees with Biden's analysis in this regard.